RealGM Top 100 List #26

[Fade-away]

Based mostly on accolades and team success. Next.

that lists seems more logical and reliable than the list that is being made on this forum

[lorak]

Based mostly on accolades and team success. Next.

that lists seems more logical and reliable than the list that is being made on this forum

Not really. For example Robertson over Kobe. KB, West and Robertson over Hakeem. Baylor at #13 is completely LOL. Hondo at #17 also. Cousy and Stockton over Robinson is even more silly, something like "lol * infinity".

[pancakes3]

And Baylor almost every year missed a lot of games. He played 80 only one time and 75 or more 3 other times. Also for ~half of his career he was ineffective scorer and his team played better without him.

a) Shaq only played in 75 or more games for 5 seasons out of 19 compared to Baylor's 4.
b) In Baylor's rookie season the league only played 72 games. it then incrementally grew, but didn't become the current 82 games until '68.

Regarding Baylor's efficiency, his relative ts%'s:
1959: +2.1
1960: +2.3
1961: +2.9
1962: +1.4
1963: +2
1964: +.03
1965: -1.5

for comparison, Kobe's 35 ppg was +2.4 above league TS%, MJ's 37 ppg season was +2.7, MJ's 35ppg season was +6.5, Barry's 35ppg season was +3.8, West's '70 season was +6.1, Wade's 09 season was +3.0 and TMac's '03 season was +3.5.

so... is he the most efficient volume scorer out there? no. is it terrible, or even bad enough to say it's a detriment? doesn't look like it to me, given the volume he was scoring at.

[Gongxi]

Based mostly on accolades and team success. Next.

that lists seems more logical and reliable than the list that is being made on this forum

As David pointed out, no. It just seems more like what people are used to seeing, because people are used to players being ranked by accolades and team success. It's a circular argument.

This list is based off of how players play. Ya know, how good they are at basketball. Cousy wasn't better at basketball than David Robinson, no matter how 'reliable' that seems to you.

[Baller 24]

We're not looking to compare lists here, or we're not looking to find what the "consensus" of fans who post on the internet think in sake of comparison. That's boring, we're looking at things here based on how good an individual player is at the game of basketball, sure that takes into account many factors, but this project is entirely different, it'd be completely boring if we just compare list and do the same thing over and over again..

[lorak]

And Baylor almost every year missed a lot of games. He played 80 only one time and 75 or more 3 other times. Also for ~half of his career he was ineffective scorer and his team played better without him.

Regarding Baylor's efficiency, his relative ts%'s:
1959: +2.1
1960: +2.3
1961: +2.9
1962: +1.4
1963: +2
1964: +.03
1965: -1.5

I said "~half his career". Here's his TS% through whole career:

Code: Select all

1971-72    -1,7
1970-71    -3,8
1969-70    2,6
1968-69    0,9
1967-68    0,7
1966-67    -0,2
1965-66    -3,1
1964-65    -1,6
1963-64    0,2
1962-63    2,6
1961-62    1,3
1960-61    2,9
1959-60    2,6
1958-59    3,1


So ok, not so bad (and my "half career" is obviously wrong statement ;]), especially when we include volume, but after first 5 seasons he was basically at league average or below. I suppose that explains in some way why his teams often were better without him.

[pancakes3]

after first 5 seasons he was basically at league average or below. I suppose that explains in some way why his teams often were better without him.

he hurt his knee big time in the playoffs that year

[JerkyWay]

13 Elgin Baylor SF
17 John Havlicek SG/SF
21 Isiah Thomas PG
23 Rick Barry SF
26 John Stockton PG
39 Patrick Ewing C
41 Gary Payton PG
42 Clyde Drexler SG
38 George Gervin SG
72 Artis Gilmore C

That's pretty horrible consensus, some of these lists has to be quite ridiculous. Baylor as number 13 and Gilmore #72? What the hell?

And Baylor almost every year missed a lot of games. He played 80 only one time and 75 or more 3 other times. Also for ~half of his career he was ineffective scorer and his team played better without him.

Jerry West very rarely missed games, so that's not really fair to compare Baylor to other stars who didn't have other HoFer to help themselves.

[Doctor MJ]

Regarding Baylor's efficiency, his relative ts%'s:
1959: +2.1
1960: +2.3
1961: +2.9
1962: +1.4
1963: +2
1964: +.03
1965: -1.5

for comparison, Kobe's 35 ppg was +2.4 above league TS%, MJ's 37 ppg season was +2.7, MJ's 35ppg season was +6.5, Barry's 35ppg season was +3.8, West's '70 season was +6.1, Wade's 09 season was +3.0 and TMac's '03 season was +3.5.

so... is he the most efficient volume scorer out there? no. is it terrible, or even bad enough to say it's a detriment? doesn't look like it to me, given the volume he was scoring at.

Let's crystallize this thing.

If you are comfortable simply rating players' efficiency based on how it stood compared to their average contemporary, then there's no need to really penalize Barry. However, that then begs the question of what you do with someone like West. He stood out by that same standard far more than someone like Kobe, do you give West a boost? Do you see West as a clearly more impressive player than Kobe?

If you do, I'm really fine with that, it's just that the vast majority of people don't rate Kobe-West that way, and I'm really wary of any opinion that neither boosts West nor penalizes Baylor. That literally ignores the fact that they played the bulk of their careers side-by-side with West being a drastically more effective scorer.

And to "was he a detriment"? It's a good question. Let me also reference beast who pointed out that players had a tendency to settle in at a certain level of efficiency which could lead you to conclude that humans just learn a certain way of being and can't change.

Now, I'm totally sympathetic to a player who by modern standards had weak efficiency, but who wasn't surrounded by others with strong efficiency. That's the type of "wrong" decision making I think is very tough for a player to move past. Until you see someone do it better, often you don't know "better" is possible.

The thing that kills me about Baylor though is that he was literally right next to a guy doing it way better for most of his career, and apparently never noticed the problem. You may say, "Well these difference in efficiency are hard for humans to grasp if they aren't looking at the number" and that's true, but you absolutely can get a sense of stuff another guy is doing that's really working, and you can try to incorporate that into your game. Bob Pettit sure seemed to be doing that.

That Baylor didn't seem to make adjustments as the league's efficiency went up is an issue, and that he didn't find a way to better support West & later Wilt is also a problem. The Lakers of the 60s really needed every other kind of role played more than volume scorer given that they West, and they were damned to also ran status partly because Baylor simply couldn't change what he was.

[Doctor MJ]

Jerry West very rarely missed games, so that's not really fair to compare Baylor to other stars who didn't have other HoFer to help themselves.

West often missed games. Half of his seasons have him playing less than 70 games.

[Laimbeer]

We're not looking to compare lists here, or we're not looking to find what the "consensus" of fans who post on the internet think in sake of comparison. That's boring, we're looking at things here based on how good an individual player is at the game of basketball, sure that takes into account many factors, but this project is entirely different, it'd be completely boring if we just compare list and do the same thing over and over again..

I pretty much agree. We're doing our own list here.

I see this as a tool. If I'm charged with determining the greatest whatever, and substantial work has been done on it in the past, I consider it. But it's just one part of the puzzle. I'm not offering it as anything more.

[pancakes3]

The thing that kills me about Baylor though is that he was literally right next to a guy doing it way better for most of his career, and apparently never noticed the problem. You may say, "Well these difference in efficiency are hard for humans to grasp if they aren't looking at the number" and that's true, but you absolutely can get a sense of stuff another guy is doing that's really working, and you can try to incorporate that into your game. Bob Pettit sure seemed to be doing that.

That Baylor didn't seem to make adjustments as the league's efficiency went up is an issue, and that he didn't find a way to better support West & later Wilt is also a problem. The Lakers of the 60s really needed every other kind of role played more than volume scorer given that they West, and they were damned to also ran status partly because Baylor simply couldn't change what he was.

I don't know why this kills you. How much deference do you expect out of an 11 time all-nba first teamer? West joined the squad in '61 and was played sparingly as a rookie. As a sophomore in '62 West increased his role but baylor, playing only on leave days, understandably would want to put on a show on his precious few free days and i'm sure west obliged in feeding him the ball. in '64 the two worked rather nicely except West missed a good chunk of games due to a hammy injury which would account for Baylor's edge in fga's. in from 1964 onwards, post-baylor's injury, West and Baylor had pretty similar fga's with West being much more ball dominant as a lead guard, and west holding an edge in FTA's as well. The transition from Baylor being the big dog, to the two working mutually had finally settled into it being West's team by the mid 60's for sure. I don't get the impression that Baylor was Kobe out there eating into Shaq's touches in the '04 finals or anything.

as for every other kind of role needed? Baylor was always in the 4-5 range in assists good for 2nd or 3rd on the team and was easily the best rebounder the lakers had until Wilt.

[lorak]

after first 5 seasons he was basically at league average or below. I suppose that explains in some way why his teams often were better without him.

he hurt his knee big time in the playoffs that year

Yes, so look - the real Baylor played only for 5 seasons and even then he hadn't so big impact like other players still left, for example Ewing. That's why I can't understand why people are voting him right now.

[pancakes3]

The lakers went to the finals three times in those five years, once without west, once with a rookie west, and another time with a 3rd year west.

[lorak]

The lakers went to the finals three times in those five years, once without west, once with a rookie west, and another time with a 3rd year west.

So?
It's wasn't too difficult to advance to the finals these years when team played in the West, because of very small number of teams (4-5 in conference!) and Celtics in opposite conference.

I would like if you would explain how Baylor over course of his career was more valuable than Ewing. In other words how player, who was valuable only on offensive end and was good (but not great) offensive player is better than great defensive player, who also was above average on offense.

[Dr Positivity]

Btw, I'm voting Dominique soon. I understand the concerns about the efficiency but if it can lead to top 5 ORTGs and 50 W+ seasons without a star partner, he must've been doing something right on that end.

[pancakes3]

i really don't know what else to say without bringing up accolades which people are well aware of anyway. baylor took his team in the league that he played to the finals 3 times in 5 years. he put up scoring and rebounding stats second only to Wilt as a SF and did it at above league-average efficiency as well as being in the top 10 in assists while he was scoring a ton. At one point he even notched a higher PER than Wilt, which is just mindboggling. He was the consensus best forward of the '60s and I'm not sure how else to really defend this pick without bashing Ewing - something that i'm hesitant to do.

[fatal9]

Vote: Ewing
Nominate: McHale

[TMACFORMVP]

Re: Dr. Mufasa, while I don't agree with you about McGrady's particular place in this project, I couldn't agree with you more about Nique.

As far as scoring wings go, Nique may be the most underrated player on RealGM (note: I said RealGM, not the actual media). But nonetheless, all I hear when someone discuss Nique is "low efficiency, hollow stat loser." Dude was a dominant scorer, and not as bad as people make him out to be in the supposed weaknesses in his game. I personally don't have him here yet, but I think we should get his name out there, because I think we're at a point where he should start coming up on the horizon - and certainly not too far behind Pierce/McGrady in an All-Time Sort Ranking.

Scoring
- The only players in NBA history with more 25+ PPG seasons are Jerry West, Karl Malone and Michael Jordan (all with more than 10 seasons).

- He's in fact tied with guys like Kobe, Shaq, and Kareem for 10 straight 25 PPG seasons. That's ridiculous longevity for scoring that sort of output night in and night out. For comparisons sake, a guy like Gervin has three entire seasons less scoring the ball at that sort of rate (though I understand that's flawed, since he had many other high volume scoring seasons, while Nique pretty much did 25 PPG or bust). The only players with more 2000 point seasons are Karl Malone, Kareem, and Jordan.

- In a stretch, from 90-95, Nique had four seasons of scoring at least 25 PPG on a .550 TS% or higher. The only other players to replicate such a feat during this time frame was Jordan (4x), Malone (5x), and Mullin (4x). Keep in mind, this is the same stretch with first three peat Jordan, peak Hakeem, DRob, Barkley, Ewing, and still in prime Karl Malone.

The bottom line when Weiss took over as the head coach, Nique became a considerably more efficient but similar in high volume scorer.

Heck in '93, Nique averaged 30/7/3 on 47% from the field, and 38% from three (finishing top 10 in the league in three point makes). I don't think we realize how special that sort of season is from a scoring perspective. In NBA history, there have only been 12 seasons in where a player has done 28+ PPG on at least 45% from the field and 35% from three (with over half a three made per game):

Jordan (4x), Bird (3x), TMac (1x), Durant (1x), Bryant (2x).

I'm not trying to say his peak is on par with some of these guys, but I think we should realize Nique did have efficient seasons scoring the ball, with one season where he was just ridiculous. (His efficiency difference between wins/losses for that Hawks team was incredible, in 39 wins, he did 33/7/4 on .596 TS, in their 31 losses, he did 26/7/3 on .535 TS. He had two months shooting the ball at a 50/40/83 rate, while putting up 34 and 31 PPG respectively those months. A real underlooked season, despite a short playoff exit, IMO). I mean, seriously look at his 91, and 93 season and compare them to Durant's just last season - Nique would nearly have the edge in most categories.

His TS% relative to league average was a nice margin ABOVE.

90: .536 (.556) + 2.0
91: .534 (.555) + 2.1
92: .531 (.552) + 2.1
93: .536 (.570) + 3.4
94: .527 (.529) + 0.2

Admittedly it's lower during the first part of his career, but he scored at roughly league average for three more seasons.

87: .537 (.543) + 0.6
88: .537 (.534) - 0.3
89: .536 (.528) - 0.8

He's had two seasons (his first two seasons of the streak) where he's averaged considerably less than the league wide true shooting percentage, which is unfortunate, but does not define his career, IMO. In case anyone is interested:

85: .543 (.512) - 3.1
86: .555 (.536) - 1.9

EDIT - The Hawks were 11th, 4th, 5th, 4th, 4th, 8th, 16th (year Nique got hurt), 10th during Nique's prime. That's pretty impressive considering the lack of other legitimate options.

He's had what you could argue eight terrific seasons ITO of scoring ability with a four year peak that's nearly in line with some of the years Kobe has had (in terms of scoring). Has led the league in scoring, came twice three more times, finished in the Top 10 in FT's attempted 7 times, and even finished in the top 10ish in 3 Pointers made twice.

I'm not trying to say Nique was a super efficient guy, but he wasn't as bad as advertised.

Rebounding
I saw ElGee's post about Pippen's rebounding #'s and what TrueLAFan be considered an average rebounder for a SF. Surprisingly enough, the "one dimensional" Nique has a similar career TRB% when compared to Pippen. 10.4 Career TRB%, including peaking at a 13.0 TRB%. He's even had a season where he averaged nearly 26 PPG along with 9.0 rebounds. The only perimeter players that have averaged at least 25/9 are Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Billy Cunningham and Rick Barry. You could even consider Bird/Cunningham as combo sort forwards, and being in a more modern era, that's damn impressive by Nique.

Note: I'm not saying he's a better rebounder than Pippen, because in the playoffs Nique generally stayed the same/slightly worse, while Pippen increased his output, but Nique was a fantastic rebounder for his position, with a terrific peak.

Impact/Winning
91-92: (22-20 w/him -- .523 %) (16-24 w/out him -- .400 winning %)
92-93: (39-32 w/him -- .549 % ) (4-7 w/out him -- .363 winning %)

TOTAL W/OUT NIQUE: 101.6 PPG
LEAGUE AVERAGE: 105.6
TOTAL W/ NIQUE: 110.6 PPG (+9.0)

That's taking a team with the a below average offensive team and making it one of the best in the league. Just for reference sake; 101.6 would be ranked the 22nd worst scoring offense (of 27), while 110.6 would be ranked 5th in terms of overall scoring offenses.

TOTAL (over the course of those two seasons):
61-52 (.539) w/him.
20-31 (.392) w/out him.

That's pretty telling in the sense that it would go against the "he had no real impact on his team" sort of thing. He took them from a team that was below average offensively, and made them slightly above average.

- He led four straight 50 win teams (including one Hawks team that won 57 games). To note, Paul Pierce during his prime has never been the best or more impact-ful player on a 50 win team (though, it's nitpicking as one of his teams won 49, IIRC). Nonetheless, Nique's production goes down in the playoffs, which should drop him down considerably (if he was a fantastic playoff performer, he should arguably be in contention for the spot right now).

But how much can we really blame him for losing in the playoffs. The teams Nique lost to in the playoffs throughout his career consisted of:

86 Celtics, '87 Pistons, '88 Celtics, '89 Bucks, '91 Pistons, '93 Bulls

Outside of the '89 Bucks, we're talking about the best teams in the NBA, some including the greatest teams of All-Time (Celtics, Bulls). Considering Nique never had a legitimate All-Star next to him (Willis was an all-star the year Nique was hurt, and the team played w/out Nique.. Willis was good, but not someone I'd call the help needed to beat the teams listed above).

I think in this competition, we've done a good job of looking past certain circumstances players have been given, and moreso judging them on what they were able to do with what they're given. I think Nique getting a couple 50 win teams and other playoff appearances only losing to the best personifies that train of thought.

Accolades
- 5 Top 10 Finishes in MVP Voting (2, 5, 6, 8, 5)
- 7 Time All-NBA.
- 9 Time NBA All-Star
- NBA Scoring Champ

Style Of Play
Some people say his style of play wasn't conducive to winning basketball. I have to ask, why that is? The usual response is, ball hog that eats up the shot clock and takes players out of the rythmn of their offense. I've seen a lot of Nique games recently, and tbh, I've never got the impression he held the ball, and stopped movement. He was much more a quick hitter that made his moves early, often got doubled and tripled team, and would pass well out of them. At times he would force shots, but not to any extent that it actually hurt his team. What scorers of these caliber DIDN'T force shots at times?

And his ROLE on those Hawks teams were to take shots and score points. If he wasn't there to do it, we see the sort of impact it had on the Hawks in '92 and '93. If the Hawks management wasn't so stupid, we could potentially be talking about a Nique that reached the ECF. in '94. The Hawks were rolling before they traded him, which ultimately crushed him, and ended his career (on his Beyond the Glory, he was so crushed, that he just went home crying looking for someone to hug). There have been articles claiming it could have finally been Nique's "year" with Jordan having retired for the first time. Now that's all purely speculative, but the Hawks started 24-7 (won around 34 of 49 with Nique), and he had reduced his shot attempts with a better supporting cast, and they were poised to make a run.

And again, the man DID lead four straight 50 win teams.

He took roughly 20-23 shot attempts for the most part of his prime (20 for his career), which isn't even too far off from the amount of shot attempts Kobe put up.

Defense/Playmaking
Not much to defend here, as these are some of the more criticized parts of his game as well, but I'd just like to point out that:

a.) I don't think Nique's defense was terrible per se. It wasn't good, he didn't fight hard through screens, but we have to figure in some of the offensive load he had for the team, right? He was OK in the passing lanes, and was tough in denying the ball before the pick or screen. With Fratello and a solid defensive cast (Rollins), the 80's Hawks were among the better defensive teams in the league, in fact finishing 2nd in DRTG once season! I know that's not a huge indicator, but I've never got the impression that he was a huge liability defensively. Average, not great, or even particularly good, but not horrible, or particularly bad. Hell, in most games, you'll often see Nique taking majority of the challenge of guarding the opponents best player.

b.) He didn't get many assists, but he didn't turn the ball over. From 90-94, he gave you over 3 assists, and was always under 3 turnovers. Compare that to a more modern day sort scorer in Melo, and you could conclude that Nique was much more careful with the ball in his hands. His assist to turnover ratio isn't a negative like it was Gervin, or even Melo. He was giving you roughly the same amount of assists/mistakes, but in his peak, had a decently positive AST/TO ratio, which again can't be said for a guy like Gervin.

TL;DR version: Nique was an outstanding scorer, with underrated efficiency, a very good rebounder, and didn't make too many mistakes with the ball. He led numerous teams to the playoffs, including 4 straight 50 win teams, and only lost to some of the best teams the era has had to offer. He should be knocked down for his lack of upping his game in the playoffs, but he has decent longevity, and was always critically recognized as one of the best players in the league whether it be in terms of MVP voting, or All-NBA selections. I'm not saying I have him for my nomination here (that still resides with Kidd, and a few more guys), but his name should come up soon - and he deserves a little more respect than those give him sometimes on RGM.

[drza]

TL;DR version: Nique was an outstanding scorer, with underrated efficiency, a very good rebounder, and didn't make too many mistakes with the ball. He led numerous teams to the playoffs, including 4 straight 50 win teams, and only lost to some of the best teams the era has had to offer. He should be knocked down for his lack of upping his game in the playoffs, but he has decent longevity, and was always critically recognized as one of the best players in the league whether it be in terms of MVP voting, or All-NBA selections. I'm not saying I have him for my nomination here (that still resides with Kidd, and a few more guys), but his name should come up soon - and he deserves a little more respect than those give him sometimes on RGM.

Snipped for the sake of quote length, but OUTSTANDING post. Your results confirm several things that I would have suspected but had never gone into depth on, and despite your disclaimers I'm not sure that Nique doesn't deserve more conversation. I'm not going to nominate him this thread, but he certainly deserves to be discussed with the other scoring wings currently under consideration.